Case law

FIRST PRYORITY BANK v. MOON

326 P.3d 528 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 27, 2013

Unlike the Tedford [v. … Corp. v.

Davuluri v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure & Supervision

71 O.B.A.J. 1594 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 13, 2000

Although § 513 refers only to "disciplinary actions," the Board claims that our opinion in State ex rel. State Board of Medical Examiners v. … Naifeh, therefore does not support the proposition that all Board appeals must be taken to this Court. T18 The Board also cites DiMauro v.

Oklahoma State AFL-CIO v. State Board for Property & Casualty Rates

463 P.2d 693 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 6, 1970

Appeals are pending in this court in three cases from orders of the State Board for Property and Casualty Rates granting increases in insurance rates. In Oklahoma State AFL-CIO, Ray E. Peterson and Dale J. Briggs v. … On the question of “standing” see *695 N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963), 371 U.S. 415 , 83 S.Ct. 328 , 9 L.Ed.2d 405 ; Brotherhood of R. Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel.

Standard National Insurance Co. v. State Board for Property & Casualty Rates

520 P.2d 672 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1974

In determining whether Standard sustained that burden, Board’s denial of Standard’s application will not be vacated if it is reasonably supported by competent evidence. Oklahoma Inspection Bureau v. … Having reached this conclusion it is unnecessary for this Court to consider the correctness of the other findings and conclusions of the Board. Order affirmed. DAVISON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V. C.

Lizar v. State

82 Okla. Crim. 56 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1946

Cr. 484 , 165 P. 636 ; Hyde v. Territory. 8 Okla. 69 , 56 P. 851 ; Board of County Commissioners, Comanche County, v. Fain, 66 Okla. 13 , 166 P. 896 ; Baggett v. State, 35 Okla. Cr. 119 , 248 P. 875 ; State v. … See also Hyde v. Territory, supra; Baggett v. State, supra; State v. Gray, supra, and Board of County Commissioners of Comanche County v. Fain, supra. The language used above applies with equal force here.

Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Miller

45 Okla. 173 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 5, 1915

Brown’s instructions. … Co. v. Woods, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 462 , 28 S. W. 416 ; American Exp. Co. v. Risley, 179 Ill. 295 , 53 N. E. 558 ; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Byrne, 100 Fed. 359 , 40 C. C. A. 402 .

St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Marshall County Excise Board

330 P.2d 203 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 16, 1958

In the printed form estimate of needs which the School District’s Board of Education used, the amount written into the blanks opposite the particular items of need, named in the printed part of the form, as: “Remodeling or … Co. v.

Vinson v. Medley

737 P.2d 932 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 19, 1987

City of Durant, supra note 16; Brown v. Fraser, Okl., 467 P.2d 464, 469 [1970] and Whitcomb v. City of Woodward, supra note 30 at 456. 32 . See cases cited in footnote 31 supra. 33 . … Bailey v. Uhls, Okl., 503 P.2d 877, 880 [1972]; Brown v. Fraser, supra note 31 and Shelton v. Lambert, Okl., 399 P.2d 467 [1965]. 35 . Shelton v. Lambert, supra note 34 at 470. 36 . Twist v.

Davis v. HUTTIG SASH AND DOOR COMPANY

288 F. Supp. 82 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 20, 1968

Brown v. National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, 104 F.Supp. 685 (Cal.1951). The Tenth Circuit has recently considered this problem in Angle v. Sacks, 382 F.2d 655 (Tenth Cir. 1967). … The concern of Congress was rather that the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act could be defeated in particular cases by the passage of time * * * ” The case of Brown for and on Behalf of N.L.R.B. v.

St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Ottawa County Excise Board

201 Okla. 478 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1949

In the case of Black v. … and used for current expenses, but there is no requirement of law for such a transfer, and where the school board has not made such a transfer, an excise board is without authority of law to consider the surplus as having

State ex rel. Board of Regents ex rel. Campus Disciplinary Council v. Lucas

297 P.3d 378 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2013

Goodin v. Brown, 1956 OK 242 , 301 P.2d 652, 654 . . See, eg., State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. … of a board to determine is it acted beyond its jurisdiction or in excess of authority and then correct the board's decision by mandamus); Oklahoma City Zoological Trust v.

In Re Choate

174 Okla. 446 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 8, 1935

On or about the 25th day of April, 1931, Caleb Choate obtained judgment for the Cunningham Bolt Company against Tincher & Brown in the sum of $158. … In construing our statute providing for an attorney’s lien, in American National Bank v.

ANDERSON v. PARISH

2026 OK 36 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 19, 2026

OSCN Found Document:ANDERSON et al. v. PARRISH et al. ANDERSON et al. v. … Co. v.

Buckner v. Oklahoma National Bank of Shawnee

25 Okla. 472 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1910

Butler et al. v. McSpadden, ante, p. 465, 107 Pac. 170 ; Ellis et al. v. Outler et al., ante, p. 469, 106 Pac. 957 ; Aldridge et al. v. … Board of Education of Stillwater, 15 Okla. 354 , 82 Pac. 827 ; Nettograph Machine Company v. Brown et al., 19 Okla. 77 , 91 Pac. 849 . In the syllabus of the ease of Ellis et al. v.

Board of Com'rs of Kiowa County v. Kiowa National Bank of Snyder

166 Okla. 255 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 28, 1933

In the case of Bilby v. … In the case of Bilby v.

Garvin County v. Lindsay Bridge Co.

32 Okla. 784 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 14, 1912

In the case of Crawford v. Board of County Commissioners of Noble County, 8 Okla. 450 , 58 Pac. 616 , it seems to be conceded that such an appeal would lie. In the case of Allen v. … The intention of the owner to dedicate his property to the public use is a prerequisite of a valid dedication. 13 Cyc. 452, and authorities cited in notes 51 and 52; Brown v. Oregon Short Line R.

Grace Drilling Co. v. Novotny

62 O.B.A.J. 2020 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 12, 1991

Glide Lumber Products Co. v. Employment Div., 86 Or.App. 669 , 741 *909 P.2d 907, 910 (1987); Robinson v. Brown, 129 So.2d 45 (La.Ct.App.1961). … Corp. v. Mize, 573 P.2d 703, 704 (Okla.1977). The Board’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence, and there are no errors of law appearing before us. The order of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Dancy v. Peebly

132 Okla. 84 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 28, 1928

Board of Education v. Woodwarth, 89 Okla. 192 , 214 Pac. 1077 . Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. … Tinker v. Modern Brotherhood of America, 13 Fed. (2nd.) 130: “A statute should be construed with reference. to the object to be accomplished by it.” Brown v.

Opinion No. 69-203 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 20, 1969

It is a well recognized principle of law, as stated in the eleventh paragraph of the syllabus of Shaw v. … See also, Brown v. State Election Board, Okl., 369 P.2d 140 (1962).

U.C. Leasing, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. State Board of Public Affairs

737 P.2d 1191 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 4, 1987

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Lumber Products Co., Okl., 590 P.2d 661 (1979); Batts v. Carter, Okl., 312 P.2d 472, 473 (1957); Collinson v. Threadgill, 122 Okl. 174 , 252 P. 827 (1927). 6 . Sheldon v. … Ambrozich v. City of Eveleth, 200 Minn. 473 , 274 N.W. 635 (1937). 10 . Bulman v. McCrane, 64 N.J. 105 , 312 A.2d 857 (1973). 11 . Colbourn v. Bell, Okl., 294 P.2d 289 (1956). 12 .